If the company is forced to pay lets say $10 (since that is an easy number) for minimum wage but the employee only provides $9 in productivity there is no point in keeping the employee since they are causing the company to lose money. Wage laws harm the unskilled worker.

And without wage laws, we'd have an even bigger need for the entitlement programs because employers would pay next to nothing for unskilled work, making those jobs pointless to have since a person couldn't support themselves on them. You can barely support yourself on a minimum wage job at the current minimum wage, or not at all, depending on where you live. Imagine if it was even lower. Wage laws prevent exploitation, and like all things, are not perfect in their application, but the alternative is even worse.

A kind act is never too small to matter. - Me(as far as I know)

No one's excited
Unless they are divided
Someone's going to have to give in
It seems uncertain - 311

Do you take into account what a minimum-wage earner actually costs taxpayers and the problems it can create for the rest of society?

It is impossible for a minimum-wage earner to make a net economic contribution to society, they simply do not earn enough. Yet many economists ignore the extraneous costs. When such a large portion of the people in the UK and USA earn such low wages, something is dysfunctionally wrong.

It is impossible for a minimum-wage earner to make a net economic contribution to society, they simply do not earn enough. Yet many economists ignore the extraneous costs. When such a large portion of the people in the UK and USA earn such low wages, something is dysfunctionally wrong.

You've created a false argument, nothing more. The "its impossible for a minimum-wage earner to make a net economic contribution to society" is just drivel. You won't be able to support it with anything but a "in my skewed opinion" approach

The curtain, a funeral pall, Comes down with the rush of a storm, While the angels, all pallid and wan, Uprising, unveiling, affirm That the play is the tragedy, 'Man,' And its hero the Conqueror Worm.

Sorry, but low wages result from low employment and low employment is the result of the economic suicide of allowing jobs to be shipped off shore. The government has abandoned protective tools in order to enrich their fellows. Marching in the streets alone will bring little notice from the elite government politicians because it is a hollow display of resentment. But, marching in the streets with a rifle over your shoulder will scare the hell of of them. They will see their very lives are at risk and will abandon their self interests to do the will of the people. They will suddenly reject their belief in globalism (that makes money for their friends) and embrace protectionism by implementing long overdue tariifs on Chinese goods. This will of course force their rich friends to come home and embrace the American worker.

Sorry, but low wages result from low employment and low employment is the result of the economic suicide of allowing jobs to be shipped off shore.

Utter rubbish. Low wages reflects two main aspects. First, a low skilled equlibrium reflecting too many jobs with, for example, a low income elasticity of demand. Second, underpayment reflecting an inability to compensate productivity. You won't find the most open nations, in terms of trade relations, with the lowest wages. Bit bleedin obvious really

The curtain, a funeral pall, Comes down with the rush of a storm, While the angels, all pallid and wan, Uprising, unveiling, affirm That the play is the tragedy, 'Man,' And its hero the Conqueror Worm.

First, a low skilled equlibrium reflecting too many jobs with, for example, a low income elasticity of demand. Second, underpayment reflecting an inability to compensate productivity. You won't find the most open nations, in terms of trade relations, with the lowest wages. Bit bleedin obvious really

What you continuously refuse to consider is that wages are NOT the same thing as productivity. Wages are determined by supply and demand. If there is an excess supply of labor, wages will go down. This, of course, has nothing to do with the workers becoming less productive. Furthermore, when wages go down, demand for labor tends to also go down.

In light of this, your continuous arguments about "the benefits of free trade" and comparative advantage are insufficient. True, they directly benefit those actually involved in the trading. But what about the extraneous effects? This improved efficiency will not necessarily be enough to compensate for job losses, or the increase in inequality caused by lower wages.

What you continuously refuse to consider is that wages are NOT the same thing as productivity. Wages are determined by supply and demand. If there is an excess supply of labor, wages will go down. This, of course, has nothing to do with the workers becoming less productive. Furthermore, when wages go down, demand for labor tends to also go down.

Again you show your innocence! If you believe that wages reflect supply and demand you will necessarily have to refer to productivity. The labour demand curve is given by the marginal revenue productivity of labour after all. Try teaching yourself some supply & demand!

In light of this, your continuous arguments about "the benefits of free trade" and comparative advantage are insufficient. True, they directly benefit those actually involved in the trading. But what about the extraneous effects? This improved efficiency will not necessarily be enough to compensate for job losses, or the increase in inequality caused by lower wages.

All 'developed' countries benefit from trade. The winners can compensate the losers. In Anglo-Saxon countries that compensation may not occur, but that has nothing to do with trade. That reflects a class ridden structure that feeds off on underpayment, underemployment and a lack of opportunity

The curtain, a funeral pall, Comes down with the rush of a storm, While the angels, all pallid and wan, Uprising, unveiling, affirm That the play is the tragedy, 'Man,' And its hero the Conqueror Worm.

This is not necessarily true. The theory of comparative advantage does NOT actually assert this. While trade certainly has a direct effect on improving "efficiency", this is not necessarily a "good" thing. If you think in terms of game theory, I will also mention The Prisoners Dilemma. Although the trade might seem mutually beneficial to both parties, it could actually have a net detrimental effect through less direct means.

But more commonly, the trade will be beneficial to one country, while hurting another country. And also remember that each country is heterogenous. Free trade helps some, takes away opportunities from others. Free trade does not necessarily create more wealth in both countries. Think about this, it should be fairly obvious. It might make sense for the business owner to outsource, but the small ammount of money he saves might be only a fraction of the wages that are lost in his country, and so ultimately it could drive him out of business because his customers do not have jobs.

Or importing from another country may be slightly cheaper, but most of the costs go to paying for fuel (to transport it) rather than to wages. So it could hurt both countries involved in the trade. (just an example)

Originally Posted by Reiver

The winners can compensate the losers.

theoretically, but this typically does not happen. And even if it did, there are incentive reasons that this compensation could result in lower efficiencies.

I am just trying to say that your Free Trade and Keynesian ideologies are only isolated elements of a wider economic understanding. In the same way that Georgism is only one element. If you do not look outside of your ideology, it will not be possible for you to see how Free Trade can be harmful.

Free Trade takes away jobs, drives wages downwards. Keynesianism has potential economic disincentives, typically is wasteful of money. And if money has to be borrowed, it tends to transfer wealth from the middle class into the hands of the wealthy. You should seriously examine these effects to determine whether the benefits of your ideologiy is worth the cost.

This is not necessarily true. The theory of comparative advantage does NOT actually assert this.

Yes it does. And it would be ignorant to suggest otherwise.

If you think in terms of game theory, I will also mention The Prisoners Dilemma. Although the trade might seem mutually beneficial to both parties, it could actually have a net detrimental effect through less direct means.

Again you only show that you don't know what you're talking about. In terms of trade, the prisoners dilemma is used to show how 'beggar thy neighbour' optimal tariffs (based on the premise of a 'terms of trade' gain from reducing trade volumes, essentially reflecting market power) will fail and therefore should be avoided through multilateralism.

But more commonly, the trade will be beneficial to one country, while hurting another country.

Utter garbage! That view is reliant on long rejected mercantilism. Your views are not based on any sound economics, demonstrating only that your nationalism hinders valid conclusion

The curtain, a funeral pall, Comes down with the rush of a storm, While the angels, all pallid and wan, Uprising, unveiling, affirm That the play is the tragedy, 'Man,' And its hero the Conqueror Worm.